Marketing DRep

We need more decentralization, not less. Perhaps focus on addressing the reason why there is a shortage of candidates instead of shrinking the number of seats. Atrophy is a warning signal.

I’m abstaining since appears that this GA is destined to pass, but my thoughts/objections are illustrated below.

While I agree the Cardano Constitution needs to be treated as a living document that can be improved over time, and some of the proposed changes in this GA draft have a view toward that very concept, it’s this Drep’s opinion that approaching changing this critical document a year after its implementation may be premature. I also feel that this is a substantial list of amendments. It may be better to take what the proposer feels are the most critically needed items and submit them as their own governance actions instead of taking this “over haul” approach. I also disagree with the removal of budgetary safeguards. We risk re-creating the same legacy system of financial abuse that this ecosystem was designed to move away from.

A very enthusiastic "Yes" for this governance action. This will address critical infrastructure blockades that have slowed/prevented the on-boarding of major stablecoins into Cardano. Cardano is a top-tier blockchain, lets make it easier for the rest of the world to discover that. LFG!

Did we not just conclude a rather lengthy budget proposal process via Intersect that covers many of the initiatives outlined in this submission? Let's keep the governance proposal process as streamlined as possible. Submit proposals that clearly fill a gap in existing initiatives for Cardano. If the approved budget for 2025 doesn't create the outcomes the proposer would like to see, they are encouraged to resubmit for next year's budget.

I applaud community initiatives focused on supporting increased liquidity on Cardano. Per the submitter, there is an updated version of this proposal being submitted so I am voting no on this version.

Though I voted in support of a previous NCL that sought to cap 2025 spending at 350 million ADA, this new proposed governance action calls for a logical reduction in that amount given the time remaining in 2025 to pass the budget, disperse funds, and for proposers to execute on contracts.

I’m voting “Yes” on this governance action.

As mentioned in the body of this submission, an agreed upon Net Change Limit is required before any budget draws can be made from Cardano’s treasury to support proposed Cardano-based projects and initiatives.

The spending cap put forth in this GA is reasonable and how the figure was derived is explained clearly. A Net Change Limit is meant to protect the treasury from abuse and ensure that it remains sustainable while the ecosystem continues to build and expand.

Right now, the treasury is slowly dwindling. Until Cardano can successfully boost the amount of transactions on its chain (hopefully with the arrival of Leios and Hydra) it’s critical that treasury funds be managed with extreme care, while also allowing enough room for spending on critical innovation, development, and community engagement activities. The proposed Net Change Limit appears to achieve that.

I'm voting "No" on this governance action since there is a newer similar GA ("2025 Net Change Limit") which does a better job of explaining what it's meant to achieve, why it's needed, and how the authors arrived at the proposed spending cap.

As a marketing-focused DRep I had initial reservations about supporting this governance action and planned to abstain. Because it was released alone without complimentary roadmaps from other Intersect committees I first assumed that this roadmap was to function as the sole illustration of how Cardano will move forward with expansion and growth, therefore the clear lack of marketing support for the product was problematic.

After chatting briefly with one of the authors of this document, the purpose of the road map was made clearer. In the future it would be appreciated to see the committees work more closely together, to release materials like this in unison to avoid confusion and to foster greater inter-committee cooperation.

As it stands, this roadmap is well delineated, is clearly orientated toward supporting expansion of Cardano’s adoption and further enabling its existing use case through improved programmability, better focus on user experiences, enhanced scalability and speed, and further stable coin implementation. For this reason I’m voting “Yes” on this governance action and I suggest other committees study this roadmap and release similar documents to clearly inform the community about what goals they wish to achieve, and how they will achieve them.

I’m voting NO on this. Here is my rationale:

On its surface, this proposal sounds appealing as it will lead to an increase in staking rewards. Unfortunately, I also view this as a shortsighted reach for immediate enrichment that shortchanges the long-term goal of building out an attractive ecosystem that “earns” increased staking rewards via increased liquidity and use.

The timing of this governance action is also inauspicious: the budget has not been ratified yet and therefore there is no compelling data to determine if taking this action is actually warranted and that it won’t have a detrimental effect on Cardano’s ability to continue to grow and develop.

Lastly, proposing to halve the tax is more than ambitious. It would have been more appealing to propose a smaller reduction, for example, 3% or even 5% vs 10%.